« Be a Charter Member of Houston Veterans for Peace | Main | Spitzer Sues Dept. of Energy »

September 07, 2005

Why a Housing Bubble Pop is So Dangerous

This will come as a shock to pundits on the right who are desperately trying to paper over the inherent problems of the US economy: there’s a housing bubble. I know, this is nothing more than liberal hysteria. If I only had positive thoughts about everything, the bubble would miraculously turn into a net benefit that would cease my worrying. Color me a realist instead. The housing bubble is in fact pretty dangerous, and not just because a drop in asset prices would shock overall sentiment. The increase in real estate values is a primary reason for the latest US economic expansion. When real estate asset prices slow their increase, the primary engine of recent US economic growth will also slow, sending ripples through the economy that could have very negative consequences.

First, according to the Bureau of Labor Services, wages for non-supervisory employees have grown 13.24% from January 2001 to July 2005. Over the same time, inflation increased 11.59%, making inflation adjusted wage growth a paltry 1.6% over a five and a half year period. In other words, what most people made in January 2001 is about what they made in July 2005, after inflation adjustments.

However, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US economy started to expand in the first quarter of 2002. Remember: consumer spending represents about 2/3 of US GDP. Wages haven’t increased in about 4 ½ years and personal savings are now at 0%. Where did the financial engine for 3 ½ years of growth come from?

Housing. Housing is the single most important asset class in the US right now.

Others can be found in a regular report from the Federal Reserve, the "Balance Sheet of Households and Non-Profit Institutions," one of the many sections of the quarterly Flow of Funds.

If you examine these figures, you learn that our collective net worth declined from 1999 (no surprise there) and bottomed in 2002. You also learn that we had fully recovered by 2003 and that we've [the US] gained $9.4 trillion in net worth — nearly 25 percent — from the 2002 bottom.

The largest source of gain? Home values, up $4 trillion. (This compares with a $1.3 trillion gain in the value of corporate equities and a $1.3 trillion gain in the value of mutual funds.).

Examining the same data back to 1952, I found that:

Residential homes are the highest percentage of our collective net worth they have ever been, 36.3 percent.

We have been borrowing at a prodigious rate, with mortgages equal to 43.7 percent of home value. That's only a bit less than the record 44.2 percent set in 2004.

We reached a record for the value of homes compared to the value of our financial assets, 48.5 percent.

Compared to the median values of the past 50 years, these are big shifts. Viewed statistically, values are at extremes.

Housing is now the single most important financial asset for the vast majority of Americans. It is no longer their 401k or non-retirement stock portfolio. It is their house – or houses. And Americans have used this asset to fund the recent expansion.
According to the Federal Reserves most recent flow of funds report, total mortgage borrowing increased from 4.64 trillion in 2001 to 9.04 trillion in 2004. In addition, according to the Federal Reserve, household debt service payments now comprise 18.45% of disposable income.

Wages increases and spending from savings have not added to GDP growth: housing debt has. The US consumer has used his house like a credit card to maintain his standard of living and increase GDP growth. When housing stops appreciating in value, the main financing vehicle of the US economy will slowly dry-up. When this happens, the consumer will no longer be able to spend in a way that increases GDP. Instead he will have to start making payments on what he has already spent.

This is why the housing bubble is so dangerous. When housing stops appreciating in value, the US consumer’s focus will shift from spending on current purchases to making payments on past purchases. He will no longer be able to take out another loan to buy a good because his main source of financing is no longer viable. 2/3 of the US economy will slow, hurting the entire economy – not just selected regions.

This is why the loss of 3.6 million high-paying manufacturing and high-tech jobs over the last 5 years and the lack of wage growth is so dangerous. US economic expansion depends on the appreciation in value of a single assets class. We have collectively put all our eggs in one financial basket, exposing ourselves to the risk inherent to that asset. This is reckless financial planning of the highest order.

When housing slows, we will pay the price.

Link

Posted by Hale Stewart at September 7, 2005 10:11 AM | Permalink

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/537

Comments

There are many cliches or proverbs that come to mind after reading this posting: put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket; or
real estate value is based on the greater fool coming along theory.
Seriously, my wife and I have always believed that real estate was a good investment but not foolproof. I am reminded of a friend who in the 1960s following the advice of experts, bought a rental house. It was to be the start of his fortune or so he thought. Five years later when he decided to move to another country, he liquidated all of his investments. The house he sold for just about what he had paid for it. Subtracting all the money he had put in for repairs, he lost money. During that time he had had a small savings account that actually had a higher return, even though it was only 2 per cent or so, than his real estate investment.
At the risk of one more cliche- investing in real estate is the same as investing in a restaurant. You can make a small fortune in a restaurant provided you start with a large fortune.

Posted by: Leif Hatlen at September 7, 2005 04:27 PM

This just emphasises that the rising cost of housing... or the rising cost of ANYTHING, really... is NOT economic growth, and it makes a fragile substitute for prosperity. Almost by definition, everyone making money in a finite housing market is balanced by someone losing money. In boom markets people sometimes forget that a house is really made to be lived in.

Posted by: Mike Chappell at September 8, 2005 11:02 AM

I'm pretty sure the housing market isn't finite, Mike. We do have new consumers entering this market at both ends--immigrants and kids growing up and entering the workforce. These are exactly the things you need to sustain growth.

I'm curious about whether Leif Hatlen's friend ever actually rented out his rental property. If so, the anecdote suggests that his repair costs actually exceeded his rental income. I wonder how many landlords can make that complaint. I know mine sure can't.

Posted by: Bucky at September 9, 2005 02:52 AM

Bucky: You're absolutely right. The US has solid population growth and cheap capital (loans for homes). People have to live somewhere, and record numbers are discovering the joys of home ownership. While there may be some market corrections in some places (think California), turning that into a housing bubble that will benefit one party seems more like wishful thinking than solid economics.

Of course, all bets would be off if the government would enact tax reform that killed real estate like 1986's legislation did.

Posted by: kevin whited at September 12, 2005 08:56 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Clicking the Post button signifies that you agree to adhere to the Comment Policy
« Be a Charter Member of Houston Veterans for Peace | Main | Spitzer Sues Dept. of Energy »